Filed: Feb. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 10, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-20333 PLEASANTVILLE CIVIC LEAGUE OF HOUSTON, TEXAS; ET AL, Plaintiffs, BRANDECE J. ABBOTT; BRENDAN E. ADAMS; JERMY LAVON ADAMS; KEVIN CRAIG ADAMS, JR.; TASHUANA NICOLE ADAMS; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus GUARDIAN AD LITEM, also known as Kim Ballew, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LOGISTICS PARTNERS, INC., ET AL, Defendants, _
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 10, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-20333 PLEASANTVILLE CIVIC LEAGUE OF HOUSTON, TEXAS; ET AL, Plaintiffs, BRANDECE J. ABBOTT; BRENDAN E. ADAMS; JERMY LAVON ADAMS; KEVIN CRAIG ADAMS, JR.; TASHUANA NICOLE ADAMS; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus GUARDIAN AD LITEM, also known as Kim Ballew, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LOGISTICS PARTNERS, INC., ET AL, Defendants, _ ..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 10, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-20333 PLEASANTVILLE CIVIC LEAGUE OF HOUSTON, TEXAS; ET AL, Plaintiffs, BRANDECE J. ABBOTT; BRENDAN E. ADAMS; JERMY LAVON ADAMS; KEVIN CRAIG ADAMS, JR.; TASHUANA NICOLE ADAMS; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus GUARDIAN AD LITEM, also known as Kim Ballew, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LOGISTICS PARTNERS, INC., ET AL, Defendants, __________________________________________________________________ Consolidated with No. 03-20334 PLEASANTVILLE CIVIC LEAGUE OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Etc.; ET AL, versus LOGISTICS PARTNERS, INC., ET AL, Defendants, U. LAWRENCE BOZE; GARY WILLIAMS PARENTI FINNEY LEWIS McMANUS WATSON & SPERANDO, Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-2894) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We must dismiss for want of appellate jurisdiction. The orders for which review is sought are interlocutory and unappealable rulings. Unfortunately, this effort to appeal apparently has prevented the district court from acting, a delay that only adds difficulty to a case with more than its share of confounding administrative difficulties. DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2